Loud enough for someone to hear you, if it happened in a city; you don’t have to be heard if it happened in a field or the country. So, basically, “loud enough for someone to hear you if there were people around.”
I was thinking, “how come taking God’s name in vain is moral and working on the Sabbath isn’t?” 
“He makes fire without flint and steel! He rides in a wagon pulled by invisible horses! He stares into a glowing window that grants him visions of faraway places!”
“KILL THE WITCH!!”
I have been stoned for a couple of these offences…I mean before a couple of these offences…
Is the suggestion here that there is a non-vain use of God’s name?
I mean, ultimately, any use of God’s name is in vain, right?
What about you?
Let’s clarify something- children were not liable to execution. Around the start of puberty, you started to become responsible to Torah & were considered a full citizen, able to distinquish right from wrong & eligible for the death penalty at age 20. And cursing involved more than an angry outburst but an actual invocation of contempt or slander.
Damn. I’m guilty of only 5 of them. Two of them would require a sex change. I’m just not into bestiality. Murder, rape, and kidnapping carry substantial penalties under our laws. That leaves homosexual sex. So, it’d just have to be sex, right? I wouldn’t have to hang around and cuddle afterwards?
This actuially is not what the Bible says. It says a woman raped in the city should be put to death, period, and a woman raped in the country is off the hook. The reasoning given is that a woman raped in the city can call for help, so if nobody heard her she must have wanted it. The way the OP states it glosses the true repulsiveness of the law.
I curse all the time, but it’s mainly invoking Jesus rather than God. So it depends if this is a BC society to which I’ve been transported, I guess.
Are the people who answered “no” all under 10 years old or something?
Unless the woman in the city did call for help, of course. IMO the reason it’s in there is so that women can’t agree to consensual sex and then say afterwards that the man raped them. It’s an attempt to introduce a standard of evidence for rape other than he said/she said.
The virgin one the wedding night one would be a pain in the neck for parents- I mean- “We’ve only just paid for the wedding, and now you’re telling us we have get her a funeral as well? Oh for god’s sake…did I just say that? Nuts, better see if they’ll do a 2-for-1 deal.”
Yes, but not in Texas or Lousisiana. TX and LA jurpisprudence allows for the fact that some Moms just need cussin’.
Texas law also allows for homosexual sex with a trespasser, but only at night and if the trespasser is carrying wire cutters.
Then I’m scot free.
As I’m an American adult, I have to answer yes.
It clearly has to be “crying out loud.”
If you define “adultery” narrowly as “having sex with someone you’re not married to,” then I’d have been stoned at age 17 when I busted my cherry on a girl from high school.
.
.
.
Totally would have been worth it, too. 
Stop that. You’re being far too silly.
Autolycus, it’s called Mosaic law because “Mosaic” is the English adjectival form for Moses. Mosaic = about, belonging to, or having to do with Moses.
That wouldn’t even have counted for me – I also used to tell my parents I hated them, and could throw a tantrum like nobody’s business.
(My parents were pretty hardcore about ignoring it – all I usually accomplished was giving myself a monster headache and some major hitched breathing)